[Updated Tuesday, September 23: regulations.gov shows a final total of 223,862 comments posted at the close of the comment period, with 625,737 comments received overall. Those extra 400,000 comments represent petitions submitted in bulk by conservation groups opposed to the rescission. Since support for rescinding the roadless rule was nearly zero in CWP’s original analysis performed in the closing hours of the comment period (0.6 percent with a margin of error of ±1.4 percent), repeating the analysis, with or without the 400,000 bulk comments, would find a similarly small or smaller percentage of support for rescinding the rule, still well within the margin of error for a 5,000-comment sample.]
DENVER—In the final hours of the Forest Service’s truncated public comment period, an analysis by the Center for Western Priorities finds that over 99 percent of the 183,000 comments submitted to regulations.gov as of Friday morning oppose the Trump administration’s plan to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule. Today is the final day of the U.S. Forest Service’s 21-day comment period on the agency’s plan to repeal the Roadless Rule, which currently protects over 58.8 million acres of national forest land from road-building, logging, and other industrial activity. Tens of thousands more public comments collected by conservation and outdoor advocacy groups are expected to be submitted in the closing hours of the comment period.
In an announcement earlier this summer, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins claimed that the Trump administration planned to repeal the Roadless Rule in order to increase timber production and reduce wildfire risk in national forests. But research has shown that increasing the amount of roads in forests actually increases wildfire risk. Additionally, the Forest Service already faces a $10 billion road maintenance backlog. Increasing the amount of roads in national forests will also grow this number.
Fuel reduction treatments can and do take place in national forest lands protected by the Roadless Rule. In fact, fuel management activities in roadless areas have actually been more numerous on a per-acre basis than elsewhere in the National Forest System, and historical fire maps indicate that forests with and without roads have burned at similar rates since the rule took effect in 2001. It is also important to note that roadless protections will likely remain in place in Idaho and Colorado, as both states opted to create their own version of the 2001 Roadless Rule and are therefore exempt from the federal rule.
Historically, the Roadless Rule has received extremely strong public support. The rule garnered 1.6 million public comments when it was first proposed by the Clinton administration, with over 90 percent* of commenters favoring it. Crafting the 2001 Roadless Rule was a two-year process that involved more than 600 public hearings across the country. A 2019 poll by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that 75 percent of the public supported the rule at that time. The poll also found that those in rural areas are just as likely to support the policy as those in non-rural areas.
The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Deputy Director Aaron Weiss:
“Across state lines and party lines, Americans spoke with one voice to tell President Trump to stop this attack on America’s forests. Public support for the Roadless Rule has only increased in the quarter century it has been in place. During that time, the rule has protected countless watersheds, habitats, as well as provided incredible backcountry recreation opportunities to the nation.”
“This attack on the Roadless Rule and on America’s forests is nothing more than a giveaway to timber and mining companies. Throwing open our forests for clear cuts and strip mines will increase wildfire risk, decrease water quality, degrade habitat, and harm the backcountry that outdoorsmen and women hold dear. Unfortunately, the Trump administration is dead-set on hobbling the Forest Service with staffing and budget cuts while handing our national forests over to companies that will inevitably harm the long-term health of our forests.”
Learn more:
- What is the “Roadless Rule”? – Sierra Club, Oregon Chapter
- Roadless Areas by the Numbers – Trout Unlimited
- Study: Long-term forest health implications of roadlessness – U.S. Forest Service
- Study: Industry-managed forests more likely to fuel megafires – University of Utah
- Study: Roads and Wildfires – Pacific Biodiversity Institute
- The Long Road to Rescinding the Roadless Rule – University of Wyoming College of Law
- Americans Support ‘Roadless Rule’ to Protect Remarkable Forests – Pew Charitable Trusts
- Economists Criticize Forest Service Over $10 Billion Road Backlog – Taxpayers for Common Sense
- The Trump Administration Is Recklessly Axing Funding and Staff for America’s National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands – Center for American Progress
- Forest Service Chief Grossly Exaggerates Roadless Rule Concern – The Wilderness Society
- The Trump administration’s repeal of the roadless rule could threaten wildlife – High Country News
- Rushed Public Comment Process for Roadless Rule Rescission Raises Red Flags – Center for Economic and Policy Research
*The exact percentage of comments in favor of the rule varies from source to source, but many reports place it at 97 percent. (Source: Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club, Yale Environment 360.) Other reports place it slightly lower, at 95 percent.
Featured image: Mt. Hood National Forest, USFS